| 1 |
On Friday 16 December 2005 19:01, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:09:10PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thursday 15 December 2005 20:06, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > This is the only blocker for merging parallel-fetch as far as I can |
| 5 |
> > > tell- so... my vote is nuking the wait out of portage.portageexit |
| 6 |
> > > (it's exec subsystem crap, belong in exec's atexit (where it exists)). |
| 7 |
> > > Assuming no complaints there, issues with parallel-fetch going into |
| 8 |
> > > svn? |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Nuking the wait is fine if things will still work the same.. I'm kind of |
| 11 |
> > wondering if ctrl-c'ing behaviour will change - how gets the ctrl-c |
| 12 |
> > first? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> ctrl-c doesn't come in play here- just triggers exithandler, which |
| 15 |
> calls portageexit. What's stupid about this code is that exithandler |
| 16 |
> has it's *own* set of kill calls in it (nothing like 101 duplicated |
| 17 |
> bits). |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Either way... exit, or nothing left to execute, python will then |
| 20 |
> trigger atexit registered callbacks in a lifo manner. So all |
| 21 |
> exithandler really _should_ have to do is just sys.exit. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I mean for when a sub-process is running such as ebuild or rsync. Will portage |
| 24 |
get the SIGINT before or at the same time as the sub-process causing portage |
| 25 |
to then SIGKILL it while it's trying to exit cleanly? Given that portage's |
| 26 |
atexit handler is registered after portage_exec's, the subprocess reaping |
| 27 |
code would not have been doing anything in the past. I guess the question is |
| 28 |
more a general one rather than specifically related to background fetching. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives